number 34 • Winter 2018

Authors

Allan C. Carlson

articles

INA RARE MOMENT of consensus, liberals and conservatives passed and subsequently praised the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the move toward a flat income tax that lies at its heart. The reform “flattened” the tax code not only in the sense that it reduced the number of tax brackets and the differences between them; it also sought to eliminate distortions of behavior produced by special tax breaks and loopholes. The consensus that emerged included the newly rediscovered conviction that the tax code should strive simply to collect revenue rather than to reward or encourage certain types of financial or social behavior.

HOW is it possible for a study group headed by a magisterial defender of the family, Michael Novak, and including such pro-family analysts as Allan Carlson and Charles Murray to produce, no doubt unwittingly, a profoundly antifamily report on American welfare policy? How is it possible for such a group of conservatives to espouse a set of recommendations that would vastly expand the U.S. welfare state? How is it possible for this learned panel entirely to ignore profamily policies proven effective in a dozen countries and to advocate policies repeatedly proven futile in the United States? We all know there is an enemy out there. But, speaking as a conservative, I wonder: Why does it so often turn out to be us?

PROFUSE RHETORIC about the family has long been a staple of American politics. Yet in contrast to the rest of the Western world, debate here on the specifics of a family policy has been notoriously weak.

THE concept of “family policy” has attracted unprecedented attention within liberal political circles over the past four years. This attention, in turn, has generated numerous proposals aimed at strengthening American family life through government action.